Thread: The Importance of Using the Right Data

Greetings All,
The recent thread on the best data for ADI powder got me thinking. Data has changed over time for various reasons so I thought I would share some comparisons to illustrate why current and relevant data only should be used.
I selected the .264 Win Mag as it has a reputation for being a cantankerous cartridge to load for and shows how much things have changed. The .264 Win Mag came out in 1959 and was the new fire breathing Magnum of the time. The slowest powder commonly available at the time was WW2 surplus 4831 offered by Hodgdon at bargain prices. I looked at the current version AR2213SC or H4831SC plus AR2217 or H1000.

For the 129 grain projectile Nick Harvey in his sixth edition (about 2003) listed max loads of 68 grains of AR2213SC and 71 grains of AR2217. The 68 AR2213SC grain load is clearly an error as he lists 3 grains less for the 120 grain projectile. I suspect it has not been corrected from his 1980 manual.
For the 129 grain Hornady soft point the current Hodgdon on line data lists max loads of 62 grains of H4831SC and 64 grains of H1000. Hodgdon also lists, for the 130 grain AB max loads of 59.2 grains of H4831 and 60.4 grains of H1000. These loads are pressure tested in PSI using the modern electronic systems so this is modern data.
For the 130 grain Barnes TSX flat base Barnes does not list H4831 but does list a max load of 62.1 grains of H1000. Barnes does not list either powder for their 127 grain LRX BT but their loads for other powders and this projectile are lower than the 130 grain TSX FB so perhaps a slower powder is needed.

So there we have it, a variation of up to 10 grains in max loads of two powders in published data over less than 20 years. Part is due to better pressure testing methods and likely a larger part to harder construction of the latest whizo projectiles. I think the 3 grain difference between max loads as tested by Hodgdon for the Hornady and the Nosler projectiles tells us something. These loads were likely developed at the same time. Which of these loads would you care to put your face behind and touch off? I have made my decision.
Regards Grandpamac.

Much of 'the more current load data is heavily influenced by the "cover your arse" mentality of the companies' legal departments
and are often very safe but also quite a way from any "max" loading pressure. I'm in no way suggesting you disregard the data but
often safe loads and nodes are found above book data - you just need to take the appropriate care and attention.

Originally Posted by NZ_noddy

Much of 'the more current load data is heavily influenced by the "cover your arse" mentality of the companies' legal departments
and are often very safe but also quite a way from any "max" loading pressure. I'm in no way suggesting you disregard the data but
often safe loads and nodes are found above book data - you just need to take the appropriate care and attention.

Greetings NZ Noddy,
Modern load data publishers have definitely become more risk averse, especially and for good reason in the US. The more modern electronic pressure testing systems have revealed a more accurate measurement of pressure and there were some surprises. The 264 Win Mag data was updated recently after Remington started offering rifles in the calibre again and it appears that the pressure has been lowered from around 63,000 PSI to about 60,000 PSI. This may be due to large pressure variations in some loads which I have seen reported. This seems to afflict 6.5mm cartridges especially. My point, which I think you got, is to be aware of the range of data for the cartridges we load rather than pluck a load from the intrepid years of handloading and disregard the rest.
Regards Grandpamac.

why I use minimum of three lots of information to select place to start loading...non of which helps if powder is of wrong sort.....

Originally Posted by NZ_noddy

Much of 'the more current load data is heavily influenced by the "cover your arse" mentality of the companies' legal departments
and are often very safe but also quite a way from any "max" loading pressure. I'm in no way suggesting you disregard the data but
often safe loads and nodes are found above book data - you just need to take the appropriate care and attention.

Maybe but I often "analyse" loads posted on here with Q/L or GRT to try and get an approximation of the possible pressures they are running. Quite a few people are running loads that are probably well over 65,000 psi and some I'd say are in excess of 70,000psi. All fine and dandy with high quality, reliable components and good rifles but if one liitle thing fails, or some less well informed person tries the load then it may not end so well. You'd better be bloody sure you know what you are doing running any mechanical device over well established safety limits. Old pilots ( @grandpamac ) got old by knowing a thing or two about limits

264WM or RM are good examples where the cartridge/calibre is largely fallen out of favour these days, and has been for some considerable time. Hence load data with modern powders and let alone the newer high bc pills, is very hard to come by. For 264WM you really need a slower burn rate powder than 2213 or 2217. Powders like 2225 or even better RL33 is what I’ve been playing around with lately. In lack of much published data you have to start on conservative end and work up slowly and carefully.

Does anyone know of the actual load data for 'proof' cartridges ? If I knew my 270 was proofed with 70 gr of 2213 for example, I would be feeling happy at 60gr

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

Does anyone know of the actual load data for 'proof' cartridges ? If I knew my 270 was proofed with 70 gr of 2213 for example, I would be feeling happy at 60gr

Greetings Moa Hunter,
Proof cartridges are rated for pressure and not load. The powders used are unlikely to be anything we have heard of. Pressures are significantly above the standard cartridges. Hatcher talked about proof cartridges for the .30-06 with pressures of 70,000 and 120,000 CUP. The normal max being 50,000 CUP. The .270 Win has not suffered the same reductions as some others. ADI list the max pressures as 52,000 CUP or 65,000 PSI. Most of the Hodgdons/ ADI load data approaches these pressures. I assume that you mean AR2213SC rather than the obsolete AR2213 you mention which is a little faster. Hodgdons lists 60 grains of AR2213SC/ H4831 for both the Hornady and Barnes TSX projectiles as max. This is the same load that O'Connor touted from the late 1940's so it should be safe enough. I am a fan of validating the data using my chronograph. If your rifle produces much the same velocity (making allowance for different barrel length) as the load data then the pressure is likely to be much the same.
Regards Grandpamac.

To really understand "proof" you need to go to European sources, the USA has never had an independent proof system (some manufacturers operate their own versions of proofing) . I don't know if online sources but there are plenty of write ups in books on the methods of the European proof houses.

Originally Posted by grandpamac

Greetings Moa Hunter,
Proof cartridges are rated for pressure and not load. The powders used are unlikely to be anything we have heard of. Pressures are significantly above the standard cartridges. Hatcher talked about proof cartridges for the .30-06 with pressures of 70,000 and 120,000 CUP. The normal max being 50,000 CUP. The .270 Win has not suffered the same reductions as some others. ADI list the max pressures as 52,000 CUP or 65,000 PSI. Most of the Hodgdons/ ADI load data approaches these pressures. I assume that you mean AR2213SC rather than the obsolete AR2213 you mention which is a little faster. Hodgdons lists 60 grains of AR2213SC/ H4831 for both the Hornady and Barnes TSX projectiles as max. This is the same load that O'Connor touted from the late 1940's so it should be safe enough. I am a fan of validating the data using my chronograph. If your rifle produces much the same velocity (making allowance for different barrel length) as the load data then the pressure is likely to be much the same.
Regards Grandpamac.

What you write re proof powders / loads may very well be correct, but I hazard it is a guess. How do we know what powders and loads are used ? Perhaps common powders are used. It would be useful to me if pressure was always quoted in load data so that I knew how close to 65,000 I was. Certainly some load data does quote pressure. I thought O'Conner used IMR4831 not H, anyway I dont really like 2213, just used it as an example.

Harvey in his 5th edition quotes 65 grains oh H4831 as a max for the 129 in the .264WM, the same max for a 120. 2213 maxes are 70 and 63 grains for a 120 and 129 but this is the old 2213 and not H4831 or 2213SC. So not a good comparison.

Historically ADI data has been less reliable than Harvey’s. Harvey always distanced himself from the adi data which was generally very conservative. It has improved over time but Hogdon data is a good cross reference.

O’Connor used H4831 war surplus in his classic .270 loads of 58.5 for a 150 and 61+ for a 130....

Who cares

Sent from my Nokia 7 plus using Tapatalk

Talk who cares I want victims from bad reloading it's a crock of shit ,what sticky bolt or fucken jaw off doesn't happen urban myth .

Sent from my Nokia 7 plus using Tapatalk

What's the difference between 2213 and 2213sc found a tin of ar2213

Originally Posted by NRT

Talk who cares I want victims from bad reloading it's a crock of shit ,what sticky bolt or fucken jaw off doesn't happen urban myth .

Sent from my Nokia 7 plus using Tapatalk

i suppose it depends on the firearm.
Mucko and Mickey Duck have both had catastrophic rifle failures from incorrect powder in one case and using a different projectile for the same load data in another 9at least that sounds like the most likely scenario from the online discussion he had with the likes of gundoc).
One was a bunch of powder and gases came out with an ultimately buggered rifle, the other was a complete action failure with the only thing any good left being the barrel. The completely destroyed rifle was an old BSA sporter P17 and had a bolt lug fail so not a modern rifle but obviously still strong enough to stop a bolt coming back.
If it was a modern action with the two small lugs at the front, it may've been a different story. May not have failed and done what happened to MD with a 70's winny M70.
Both had safety glasses on and by the sounds of it Mucko was especially lucky with quite a bit of hot material hitting his face